There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.


--
\\\|///
( @ @ )
-----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------


oooO
---------( )----Oooo----------------
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
The original frugal ponder! Koi-ahoi mates....

In article ,
(Roy) wrote:

There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.

And you slept though Chemistry, saying "when will I ever use this boring
stuff..."

CO: 12+16=28, .vs. air, a mixture of 78% 14+14 (N2) and 21% 16+16 (O2),
plus 1% others. So, slightly lighter than air. But not much. And very,
very deadly in high concentrations - read a bit on the wood/biomass
gasification websites to be reminded - evidently the old "head in the
oven" method of suicide dated back to cooking gas that was mostly CO,
and 1 or two deep breaths would do the job...

Don't know what you are doing, but I suggest a CO meter/alarm with a
digital readout - $50 bucks or so, well spent.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

Roy wrote:
There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.


Air is a mixture of about 80% nitrogen (molecular weight approx. 28)
and 20% oxygen (molecular weight approx. 32). Carbon monoxide has a
molecular weight of approximately 28. So it's very slightly lighter
than air.

That only matters for a short while, though. Because it won't be too
long before the gases mix thoroughly, regardless of their densities.
How long is hard to say. You can calculate the time for perfectly
still gases, but it's drastically reduced when the gases are stirred up
even a little bit, as they are by people moving around, changes in
barometric pressure, etc.

John Martin

"Roy" wrote in message
...
There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.


It is slightly lighter than air. It also enters the blood stream around 300
times easier than oxygen, IIRC from my medical training.

If you suspect you or someone is affected, look at their nails. Cyanosis,
bluing of nailbeds and lips, is a sign.

As another poster said, get a good CO alarm. This is one that has a
constant digital readout of what the CO is at any moment, as well as a
memory. If the danger level is 400ppm, I don't want to wait until then. Or
if it only goes up to 396, and the alarm doesn't sound. By then, you will
have a doozy of a headache, and feel bad for a while.

CO is lethal and kills people every day. One of the things that makes it so
lethal is that it is silent and odorless. Get a good detector. I have
Kidde brand.

Steve

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:07:57 GMT, Ecnerwal
wrote:

In article ,
(Roy) wrote:

There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.

And you slept though Chemistry, saying "when will I ever use this boring
stuff..."

CO: 12+16=28, .vs. air, a mixture of 78% 14+14 (N2) and 21% 16+16 (O2),
plus 1% others. So, slightly lighter than air. But not much. And very,
very deadly in high concentrations - read a bit on the wood/biomass
gasification websites to be reminded - evidently the old "head in the
oven" method of suicide dated back to cooking gas that was mostly CO,
and 1 or two deep breaths would do the job...

Don't know what you are doing, but I suggest a CO meter/alarm with a
digital readout - $50 bucks or so, well spent.
The worst things about CO are that it sticks to hemoglobin better than
oxygen and that it accumulates in your blood. So even with very small
amounts present in the air you can be poisoned and die. This is also
why just removing someone from exposure to the gas won't guarantee
survival. I believe it also affects other organs besides the brain.
ERS

"John Martin" (clip) but it's drastically reduced when the gases are stirred
up even a little bit, (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The gasses stir themselves, due to the molecular velocities and collisions.
It's silly to talk about settling between carbon monoxide and air, and
ignore that air is a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc. Why
doesn't it settle?

In article c0bvf.6904$JT.3204@fed1read06, Steve B says...

If you suspect you or someone is affected, look at their nails. Cyanosis,
bluing of nailbeds and lips, is a sign.

Interestingly this is absolutely untrue.

CO poisioning exhibits itself as nail beds, lips, etc as being
bright cherry red.

Carboxyhemolglogin is every bit as red as the oxygenated
variety - even more so.

In fact this is a strong indicator of CO exposure.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Roy" wrote in message
...
There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.




this is something i don't understand and have been wanting to ask here.
there have been posts about filling vessels with internal combustion engine
exhaust fumes as a in-a-pinch back purge. thing i was wondering was, isn't
carbon monoxide (as a component of exhaust gases) flammable/explosive?
isn't carbon monoxide what is produced as "fuel" in a wood gassification
generator?


b.w.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:20:02 GMT, William Wixon wrote:


thing i was wondering was, isn't
carbon monoxide (as a component of exhaust gases) flammable/explosive?

How many PPM CO are you expecting?

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:35:29 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

If you suspect you or someone is affected, look at their nails. Cyanosis,
bluing of nailbeds and lips, is a sign.

That's usually a sign that they're already dead (or good as). CO is
hazardous enough that it has a good chance of killing long before
visible signs are evident. And for that matter they'll turn a deep pink
from CO, rather than blue.

For chronic low-level CO exposure, a slight headache might be all the
symptomatic indication you get. Then one day the wind is blowing the
other way down your gas heater flue and you wind up dead instead. Back
in the days of individual room gas heaters (coal gas) we really did lose
an awful lot of people to these accidents.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:20:02 GMT, "William Wixon"
wrote:

there have been posts about filling vessels with internal combustion engine
exhaust fumes as a in-a-pinch back purge. thing i was wondering was, isn't
carbon monoxide (as a component of exhaust gases) flammable/explosive?

The point with inert gas filling is to displace _oxygen_, usually
because the vessel is already unavoidably full of some flammable
hydrocarbon. If you can't stop there being fuel present, shut off the
oxidiser.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:20:02 GMT, "William Wixon"
wrote:
"Roy" wrote in message
.. .
There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?
To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.
-----------
this is something i don't understand and have been wanting to ask here.
there have been posts about filling vessels with internal combustion engine
exhaust fumes as a in-a-pinch back purge. thing i was wondering was, isn't
carbon monoxide (as a component of exhaust gases) flammable/explosive?
isn't carbon monoxide what is produced as "fuel" in a wood gassification
generator?
b.w.
=============
Yes but only if oxygen is present. The idea is that you fill the
tank with motor exhaust fumes which are effectively depleted of
oxygen thus any explosive/flamable vapor can ignite because there
is no oxygen present. Many people get the same results by
purging with c02 fir extinguisher. I don't know how effective it
was [tank did not explode] but I have seen several welders squirt
the shielding gas from their metal-arc systems to displace the
air before tig welding on a gas tank.

Same idea is used in many military aircraft. After the fuel tank
explosion on flight 800 aircraft civilian aircraft were supposed
to do this also. Should be accomplished by about 2050.

Uncle George

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:41:12 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:
snip
Same idea is used in many military aircraft. After the fuel tank
explosion on flight 800 aircraft civilian aircraft were supposed
to do this also. Should be accomplished by about 2050.

Uncle George




Yep, but it seems they have disconnecte dit on lots of the latest
versions of fighters....They used to use Halon 1301 as a fuel tank
inerting agent...Cargo types use a foam of some sort that is flame
proof and takes up a lot of space but is somehow supposed to still
allow sufficient fuel capacity.......IIRC its a blue color......F-16's
used Halon but somewhere along the line the USAF dropped it like a hot
potatoe.......and deactivated all the systems. I don;t know if its
fact or not, but was told they now have installed a nitrogen system
in its place, however the jets at my old unit still do not have any
inerting systems installed and they rotate in and out of the Iraqi
theater continually so its not like they may not be exposed to combat
conditions so there is not a need for it......

As to flight 800.......its amazing what and how a lot of aircraft
civil and military alike have tons of wiring running in and around
fuel cells......The F-16 has some pretty major wire bundles routed
right through the main fuel cells in nothing more than a thin wall
alum tube or just a grommet and no tube.......or conduit.......and
just about all connections are common electrical crimp on connections
on things like fuel probes (low voltage type) but these same aircraft
get hit by lightning all the time and have lots of burned through
insulation. most of the wires used was that crappy kapton type
insulated stuff which is about as durable as the coating on an
electric motors windings.......While the AC pack helped create flight
800's unsafe condition with heating of the fuel, I just can't seem to
think military aircraft are just as prone, since on most fighters the
entire fusealage surounds the engines and in that fusealage is a tank
for fuel where ever they can be placed.....In a way I believe what
NTSB found with 800, but in other ways I don't buy it all as they
state.
--
\\\|///
( @ @ )
-----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------


oooO
---------( )----Oooo----------------
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
The original frugal ponder! Koi-ahoi mates....

In article ,
(Roy) wrote:

There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.

Take a look at this while your at it... has some good links at the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Monoxide

Be careful messing with this stuff...

Erik

CO is combustible in air, but has a pretty high auto igntion
temperature. Typical exhaust CO level from a gasoline engine is that
is operating at a stoichometric air fuel ratio is around 0.5 to 1%.
Stoic. on a gasoline engine is about 14.7:1 air to fuel ratio on a mass
basis. CO goes concentration goes up very quickly if the engine is
running rich of stoic. or has poor cylinder to cylinder fuel
distribution, or a missfire. An engine will run quite nicely at 5% CO.
Unfortunatly, if the engine fuel distribution is bad or the engine is
missfiring, the O2 concentration in the exhaust will also go up. If a
gasoline engine is running at stoic, and has good fuel distribution,
the exhaust could be fairly "inert", but this cannot be counted on
unless it is being monitored with a gas analyzer. With after
treatment, ie. a functioning catalyst and running at stoic., CO and HC
exhaust concentrations can be in the PPM range.
William Wixon wrote:
"Roy" wrote in message
...
There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.




this is something i don't understand and have been wanting to ask here.
there have been posts about filling vessels with internal combustion engine
exhaust fumes as a in-a-pinch back purge. thing i was wondering was, isn't
carbon monoxide (as a component of exhaust gases) flammable/explosive?
isn't carbon monoxide what is produced as "fuel" in a wood gassification
generator?


b.w.

Roy wrote:

There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.


Just add up the atomic weights and determine it for yourself.
CO OO NN
...lw...

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:20:02 GMT,

Yes but only if oxygen is present. The idea is that you fill the
tank with motor exhaust fumes which are effectively depleted of
oxygen thus any explosive/flamable vapor can ignite because there
is no oxygen present. Many people get the same results by
purging with c02 fir extinguisher. I don't know how effective it
was [tank did not explode] but I have seen several welders squirt
the shielding gas from their metal-arc systems to displace the
air before tig welding on a gas tank.

Same idea is used in many military aircraft. After the fuel tank
explosion on flight 800 aircraft civilian aircraft were supposed
to do this also. Should be accomplished by about 2050.

Uncle George


i figured someone was going to say that. so, if you can use a flammable gas
(carbon monoxide) to displace oxygen, couldn't you purge the oxygen out of
the tank with propane? i understand the idea of purging oxygen to prevent
fire/explosion but it doesn't make sense to me to use a flammable gas to do
so (but i don't have as much experience as you guys).

b.w.

"Ecnerwal" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Roy) wrote:

There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.

And you slept though Chemistry, saying "when will I ever use this boring
stuff..."

CO: 12+16=28, .vs. air, a mixture of 78% 14+14 (N2) and 21% 16+16 (O2),
plus 1% others. So, slightly lighter than air. But not much. And very,
very deadly in high concentrations - read a bit on the wood/biomass
gasification websites to be reminded - evidently the old "head in the
oven" method of suicide dated back to cooking gas that was mostly CO,
and 1 or two deep breaths would do the job...

There's also the matter of diffusion and convection - just because a gas is
heavier than air doesn't mean it will all sink to the floor.

Don't know what you are doing, but I suggest a CO meter/alarm with a
digital readout - $50 bucks or so, well spent.

Roy wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:41:12 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:
snip
Same idea is used in many military aircraft. After the fuel tank
explosion on flight 800 aircraft civilian aircraft were supposed
to do this also. Should be accomplished by about 2050.

Uncle George



Yep, but it seems they have disconnecte dit on lots of the latest
versions of fighters....They used to use Halon 1301 as a fuel tank
inerting agent...Cargo types use a foam of some sort that is flame
proof and takes up a lot of space but is somehow supposed to still
allow sufficient fuel capacity.......IIRC its a blue color......F-16's
used Halon but somewhere along the line the USAF dropped it like a hot
potatoe.......and deactivated all the systems. I don;t know if its
fact or not, but was told they now have installed a nitrogen system
in its place, however the jets at my old unit still do not have any
inerting systems installed and they rotate in and out of the Iraqi
theater continually so its not like they may not be exposed to combat
conditions so there is not a need for it......

As to flight 800.......its amazing what and how a lot of aircraft
civil and military alike have tons of wiring running in and around
fuel cells......The F-16 has some pretty major wire bundles routed
right through the main fuel cells in nothing more than a thin wall
alum tube or just a grommet and no tube.......or conduit.......and
just about all connections are common electrical crimp on connections
on things like fuel probes (low voltage type) but these same aircraft
get hit by lightning all the time and have lots of burned through
insulation. most of the wires used was that crappy kapton type
insulated stuff which is about as durable as the coating on an
electric motors windings.......While the AC pack helped create flight
800's unsafe condition with heating of the fuel, I just can't seem to
think military aircraft are just as prone, since on most fighters the
entire fusealage surounds the engines and in that fusealage is a tank
for fuel where ever they can be placed.....In a way I believe what
NTSB found with 800, but in other ways I don't buy it all as they
state.
--
\\\|///
( @ @ )
-----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------

oooO
---------( )----Oooo----------------
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
The original frugal ponder! Koi-ahoi mates....

Almost every new car today has a fuel pump inside the tank..... Its a
mith that flight 800 blew up from a fuel tank pump


John

Look at a chemical chart -

Carbon Nitrogen oxygen are in those three positions.
6 ele 7 ele 8 ele ele= electrons

Since air is 70%+ Nitrogen, 30% Oxygen -
CO indicates a 50% mixture - of carbon to Oxygen.
5*6 + 5*8 ~ 70 for CO - 7*7 + 3*8 ~ 73 So by electron count - CO is lighter.
The mass of each atom is :

12.+ , 14.+ , 16.00 so with mass : 5*12 + 5*16 = 140 while 7*14 + 3*16 = 146

So when we do a better job with mass values - CO is just lighter.

martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Roy wrote:
There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 5 Jan 2006 08:44:55 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article c0bvf.6904$JT.3204@fed1read06, Steve B says...

If you suspect you or someone is affected, look at their nails. Cyanosis,
bluing of nailbeds and lips, is a sign.

Interestingly this is absolutely untrue.

CO poisioning exhibits itself as nail beds, lips, etc as being
bright cherry red.

Carboxyhemolglogin is every bit as red as the oxygenated
variety - even more so.

In fact this is a strong indicator of CO exposure.

Jim

Jeezus..Jim got something right for a change...**** me running!

G

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:35:29 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

If you suspect you or someone is affected, look at their nails. Cyanosis,
bluing of nailbeds and lips, is a sign.

That's usually a sign that they're already dead (or good as). CO is
hazardous enough that it has a good chance of killing long before
visible signs are evident. And for that matter they'll turn a deep pink
from CO, rather than blue.
(snip)

In my practice of yoga I occasionally induce syncope (fainting from low
blood pressure). Most yogis do not practice this way. It seems about a
50% reduction of blood pressure and associated (unknown %) reduction in
flow to the brain can induce a loss of conciousness. What is happening
is the brain is continuously metabolizing oxygen at about 20 watts, so
it just sucks the oxygen right out of the blood, and metabolism stops.

The way this is relevant to the thread is that it's a timed effect. One
cannot sustain induced syncope for long. However, with exposure to CO
and so the blockade of O2 capacity, the blood carries and delivers less
O2 to the brain for a long time; as long as it takes for the CO to
respirate (diffuse, ventilate). More CO in the circulating blood, less
capacity to deliver O2. 9 pints of the red stuff, and I think less than
one gram of circulating O2 or CO, maybe on the order of a milligram.

Let's see 20 respirations per minute, is it about a liter each or five
liters? So that's 1 or maybe 5 moles per minute. Around 40 or 200 grams
per minute; 20% is absorbed. So a flow of 8 or 40 grams per minute.
Back to volume that's a regulator flow of, er, the square root of three
times the cosine of Ethiopia, I'd say....

Circulation of 9 pints takes of order a minute or maybe 10 minutes, but
I am so uncertain about that, why continue?

Argon/CO mix used for TIG welding steel is particularly hazardous.
Argon displaces O2 in free air, CO displaces O2 in the blood.

I write much of the above from a careful study of recreational N2O use.
Ever hear of Olney's lesions? Brrr. That's another topic. The only use
of N2O in metalworking I know of is with butane in small Sparklets. 8
gm size; one of these of pure CO, inhaled, and held, would likely end
one's life, but the standard suicide warning would apply:

What If It Just Gave You a Headache? Brrrr.

Is it called producer gas, the low-value mix of CO and H2?

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research
Falls Church, VA 22044-0394

oldjag wrote:
CO is combustible in air, but has a pretty high auto igntion
temperature. Typical exhaust CO level from a gasoline engine is that
is operating at a stoichometric air fuel ratio is around 0.5 to 1%.
Stoic. on a gasoline engine is about 14.7:1 air to fuel ratio on a mass
basis. CO goes concentration goes up very quickly if the engine is
running rich of stoic. or has poor cylinder to cylinder fuel
distribution, or a missfire. An engine will run quite nicely at 5% CO.
Unfortunatly, if the engine fuel distribution is bad or the engine is
missfiring, the O2 concentration in the exhaust will also go up. If a
gasoline engine is running at stoic, and has good fuel distribution,
the exhaust could be fairly "inert", but this cannot be counted on
unless it is being monitored with a gas analyzer. With after
treatment, ie. a functioning catalyst and running at stoic., CO and HC
exhaust concentrations can be in the PPM range.

My new-to-me 2002 Aprilia RS50 scootah idles at about 50:1 air:fuel and
has a lovely muffler power band and mellow tone. I've hit 55 on it.
From a 50!

Looking forward to dropping in a 70 kit, gas porting the rings, and
riding the Blue Ridge.

It's got the Ditech system. Direct Injection Technology. Kinda like a
diesel injector, but it's actually a rich mixture of air and fuel being
injected. Scavenged by clean air and I think an oil spray. There's no
conventional carb. (I haven't got a manual yet. There's not much you
can do to one of these. It's all regulated by a silicon chip.)

Anyhoo, it was the bang-for-buck cleanest thing I could get in my price
range. After we sell the condo, I'm going to go for a hybrid and start
playing with ultracapacitors again.

For more on that; see "Happy New Year".

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research
Falls Church, VA 22044-0394

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:41:12 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

Same idea is used in many military aircraft.

Although not the RAF C130 that was downed in Iraq. The inquiry into this
has just published its results, one of which being that lack of an
inerting system was a contributory factor in the loss of the aircraft.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 03:18:03 GMT, "William Wixon"
wrote:

i figured someone was going to say that. so, if you can use a flammable gas
(carbon monoxide) to displace oxygen, couldn't you purge the oxygen out of
the tank with propane?

Yes, you certainly could.

However you'd then have a problem with the propane igniting too easily
outside the tank, where it's inevitably oxygen rich. CO is harder to
ignite and less energetic than propane, so a leak of CO to the
atmosphere doesn't become a secondary hazard (for typical volumes and
risks).

CO is far from an ideal inerting gas. However it's often commonly
available as engine exhaust (which may contain considerable nitrogen,
CO2, and water vapour too). It's rarely used from choice, but in the
case of oil tanker ships (for example) it was often used simply because
it was the only practical gas to hand. Another risk with exhaust gas
inerting is that diesel exhaust can contain a significant amount of
oxygen under some engine conditions.

"Ecnerwal" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Roy) wrote:

There seems to be differences of opinions on the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this forum than various
websites and media types.

And you slept though Chemistry, saying "when will I ever use this boring
stuff..."

CO: 12+16=28, .vs. air, a mixture of 78% 14+14 (N2) and 21% 16+16 (O2),
plus 1% others. So, slightly lighter than air. But not much. And very,
very deadly in high concentrations - read a bit on the wood/biomass
gasification websites to be reminded - evidently the old "head in the
oven" method of suicide dated back to cooking gas that was mostly CO,
and 1 or two deep breaths would do the job...

Don't know what you are doing, but I suggest a CO meter/alarm with a
digital readout - $50 bucks or so, well spent.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by





CO 12+16=28 (14+14)+ (16+16) ??


By that reasoning Beryllium is lighter than air at a molecular weight of
9.0112.
Simply adding molecular weights or even their atomic number is not a method
of determining density. Realize that if you take one liter of water and add
100 cc of salt to that water and stir until it is dissolved you will not
necessarily end up with 1.1 liters of material.

The specific gravity of CO is 0.968 times that of air. It is therefore
lighter than air. However, it is freely mixable in air and therefore won't
"settle" any more than salt water will settle if poured into a bucket of
fresh water. Not to mention, how is carbon monoxide formed. In almost
every case carbon monoxide is formed by the partial combustion of a
hydrocarbon. That partial combustion generally release is a large amount of
heat and therefore the carbon monoxide would be even less dense following
the typical gas laws that as temperature increases volume increases and
density decreases.

The other problem with carbon monoxide is one of affinity. It does not take
a large concentration of carbon monoxide to lead to problems because the
hemoglobin molecule binds carbon monoxide much more tightly than oxygen.
Hemoglobin will bind the carbon monoxide and then only very slowly release
it. As a result hemoglobin is no longer able to carry oxygen to the cells.
Ultimately what happens with carbon monoxide is that the organs die for lack
of oxygen. You can think of it almost like carbon monoxide is like a sticky
form of argon. Argon is not a poison however if you breathe pure argon you
die because you cannot get oxygen to your blood.and ultimately to your
cells. If you take one big breath of pure argon then on the next breath you
breathe normal air there won't be a problem. But if the argon had the
ability to stick in your lungs then on the next breath the oxygen still
wouldn't get in and you would end up suffocating. There is no lack of blood
pressure necessarily nor is there any lack of blood flow it is simply that
the blood being supplied to the organ is not carrying oxygen. Functionally
it would be like replacing all the persons blood with salt water. For a
short few seconds the heart would pump that salt water around but the organs
would not receive any oxygen and therefore would die fairly rapidly. Is
interesting to look at the treatment of carbon monoxide poisoning. If one
is placed in pure oxygen then the mathematical probability of any oxygen
atom bumping into the hemoglobin molecule during the time that it is in the
lungs goes up by a factor of 5. (Going from a concentration of
approximately 21 percent up to 100 percent) likewise going into a hyperbaric
chamber at one atmosphere of pressure will double that mathematical
probability even over pure oxygen. There is also a slight benefit to
hyperbaric oxygen in that it causes more oxygen to be dissolved into the
liquid phase of blood completely separate from hemoglobin itself.

It isn't in this post specifically but I noticed a posting somewhere else
about the possible explosion hazard of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is
definitely combustible(autoignites at 630C) however it would be extremely
unlikely for it to explode or readily burn at room temp. If you think about
it, a catalytic converter is an "engine" designed to burn carbon monoxide!
It uses rare earth metals as catalysts to allow the combination of carbon
monoxide with more oxygen producing carbon dioxide. Ultimately the
catalytic converter is fully burning the carbon atom which ultimately
started as a hydrocarbon.

The other factoid about carbon monoxide that I like is the concept that it
is an "odorless" gas. Certainly this is technically true that carbon
monoxide as a pure gas doesn't have any discernible odor however in almost
every case when carbon monoxide is being produced it is being produced
because of inefficient combustion. That inefficient combustion almost
always yields hydrocarbon fragments as well. Hydrocarbon fragments tend to
give off an odor. So although it is true that carbon monoxide itself has no
odor, the friends that it keeps typically do. If there is a case where the
combustion is just inefficient enough to produce carbon monoxide but not
hydrocarbon fragments then you will get and odorless gas. This is almost
like saying that natural gas is odorless. Technically it is but when it is
produced it is mixed with hydrogen sulfide to give it a discernible odor.
Therefore natural gas does have an odor because natural gas in the most
common state has been given an odor.

I had seen another posting talking about cyanosis associated with carbon
monoxide poisoning. I believe I saw someone respond already that the color
changes not cyanosis but rather a cherry red color. I've seen a number of
carbon monoxide poisoning cases however I can't really say that I ever was
able to notice this color difference. These were in cases with laboratory
verified toxic levels of carbon monoxide. I read it in all the textbooks
and I would answer it on a test question but I can't say as though I've ever
actually seen it.


It was a very interesting discussion to be sure

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:44:52 -0500, John
wrote:

Roy wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:41:12 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:
snip
Same idea is used in many military aircraft. After the fuel tank
explosion on flight 800 aircraft civilian aircraft were supposed
to do this also. Should be accomplished by about 2050.

Uncle George



Yep, but it seems they have disconnecte dit on lots of the latest
versions of fighters....They used to use Halon 1301 as a fuel tank
inerting agent...Cargo types use a foam of some sort that is flame
proof and takes up a lot of space but is somehow supposed to still
allow sufficient fuel capacity.......IIRC its a blue color......F-16's
used Halon but somewhere along the line the USAF dropped it like a hot
potatoe.......and deactivated all the systems. I don;t know if its
fact or not, but was told they now have installed a nitrogen system
in its place, however the jets at my old unit still do not have any
inerting systems installed and they rotate in and out of the Iraqi
theater continually so its not like they may not be exposed to combat
conditions so there is not a need for it......

As to flight 800.......its amazing what and how a lot of aircraft
civil and military alike have tons of wiring running in and around
fuel cells......The F-16 has some pretty major wire bundles routed
right through the main fuel cells in nothing more than a thin wall
alum tube or just a grommet and no tube.......or conduit.......and
just about all connections are common electrical crimp on connections
on things like fuel probes (low voltage type) but these same aircraft
get hit by lightning all the time and have lots of burned through
insulation. most of the wires used was that crappy kapton type
insulated stuff which is about as durable as the coating on an
electric motors windings.......While the AC pack helped create flight
800's unsafe condition with heating of the fuel, I just can't seem to
think military aircraft are just as prone, since on most fighters the
entire fusealage surounds the engines and in that fusealage is a tank
for fuel where ever they can be placed.....In a way I believe what
NTSB found with 800, but in other ways I don't buy it all as they
state.
--
\\\|///
( @ @ )
-----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------

oooO
---------( )----Oooo----------------
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
The original frugal ponder! Koi-ahoi mates....

Almost every new car today has a fuel pump inside the tank..... Its a
mith that flight 800 blew up from a fuel tank pump


John
Nobody said fuel tank *PUMP*. What went was the fuel tank.
Ignition source is still unknown although there are some good
suspects. In any event if the tank had been filled with an inert
gas [exhaust, freon, nitrogen, etc.] there would have been no
explosion. It is not expensive to install and use a fuel tank
inerting system. Same thing for smoke/fire alarms in the bagage
compartments. In many communities you can be fined [and possibly
jailed for repeat offenses] if you don't have an operating smoke
alarm in your home. FAA still refusing to required either
smoke/fire alarms and/or fuel cell inerting on airliners, despite
NTSB suggestions and numerous incidents, several of which have
resulted in the loss of the aircraft, crew, and passengers.

Uncle George

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:40:36 -0500, "Mr. Bla" wrote:

Simply adding molecular weights or even their atomic number is not a method
of determining density.

It is for gases though (to a good approximation)

Maybe beryllium is gaseous on your planet ? It would work then.

wrote:
[snip]
Is it called producer gas, the low-value mix of CO and H2?

That's "water gas": "producer gas" is basically air, with the oxygen
replaced by CO.

Producer gas is "produced" by burning coke in insufficient air: the
process is exothermic, so self-sustaining.

Water gas is produced by reacting steam with incandescent coke: this
process is endothermic. H2O + C = H2 + CO.
Typically water-gas generators are installed in pairs: one generates the
gas, while the other gets a blow of (excess) air, so re-heating the
coke. Then they swap roles.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:14:35 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

FAA still refusing to required either
smoke/fire alarms and/or fuel cell inerting on airliners, despite
NTSB suggestions and numerous incidents, several of which have
resulted in the loss of the aircraft, crew, and passengers.

It might be an idea to get those auto reversing rudder actuators on
737's sorted out first, at least when a fuel tank goes bang you might
be incapacitated and know nothing about your impending death, when the
rudder goes tits up it's a long slow spiral with screaming engines and
lots of anguish followed by a rapid death with instant burial at
500mph. Big savings on coffin material though as usually you will fit
in a carrier bag.

But look on the bright side you could be stuck on terra firma and
dying due to lack of basic sanitation along with another few thousand
elsewhere on the planet. In basic terms it's TEN, yes TEN "September
11ths" EVERY day. 1001 1002 1003 dead 1001 1002 1003 dead - one
every three seconds but out of sight out of mind - just like the
****ed up 737 rudders.


--

In article , Mike says...

It might be an idea to get those auto reversing rudder actuators on
737's sorted out first, at least when a fuel tank goes bang you might
be incapacitated and know nothing about your impending death, when the
rudder goes tits up it's a long slow spiral with screaming engines and
lots of anguish followed by a rapid death with instant burial at
500mph. Big savings on coffin material though as usually you will fit
in a carrier bag.

Heh. Now as far as the sideways scarebus landing gear, I thought
was a great design. Now that they've got the beta testing done
they're gonna simply replace the front tire with a large magnesium
skid plate. Save on tire replacement costs don-tcha-know. They
have the pilots pretty well trained by now, just see how long they
can keep that front strut hovering off the runway....

But look on the bright side you could be stuck on terra firma and
dying due to lack of basic sanitation along with another few thousand
elsewhere on the planet. In basic terms it's TEN, yes TEN "September
11ths" EVERY day. 1001 1002 1003 dead 1001 1002 1003 dead - one
every three seconds but out of sight out of mind - just like the
****ed up 737 rudders.

Ah, just think of what could be done if the US spend SEVEN BILLION
DOLLARS A MONTH on that problem, worldwide? That's what the Iraq
war costs us.

That's a lot of wells and sewer systems.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Mike" wrote in message
...
It might be an idea to get those auto reversing rudder actuators on
737's sorted out first, at least when a fuel tank goes bang you might
be incapacitated and know nothing about your impending death, when the
rudder goes tits up it's a long slow spiral with screaming engines and
lots of anguish followed by a rapid death with instant burial at
500mph. Big savings on coffin material though as usually you will fit
in a carrier bag.

But look on the bright side you could be stuck on terra firma and
dying due to lack of basic sanitation along with another few thousand
elsewhere on the planet. In basic terms it's TEN, yes TEN "September
11ths" EVERY day. 1001 1002 1003 dead 1001 1002 1003 dead - one
every three seconds but out of sight out of mind - just like the
****ed up 737 rudders.


--

All the 737 rudder actuators were replaced several years ago. An
airworthiness directive from the FAA.

Garrett Fulton

"As another poster said, get a good CO alarm. This is one that has a
constant digital readout of what the CO is at any moment, as well as a
memory. If the danger level is 400ppm, I don't want to wait until
then. Or
if it only goes up to 396, and the alarm doesn't sound. By then, you
will
have a doozy of a headache, and feel bad for a while.

CO is lethal and kills people every day. One of the things that makes
it so
lethal is that it is silent and odorless. Get a good detector. I have

Kidde brand. "

Would somebody discuss the different types of CO detectors and their
pros and cons?

Thanks

TMT

Leo Lichtman wrote:
"John Martin" (clip) but it's drastically reduced when the gases are stirred
up even a little bit, (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The gasses stir themselves, due to the molecular velocities and collisions.
It's silly to talk about settling between carbon monoxide and air, and
ignore that air is a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc. Why
doesn't it settle?


Entropy.

John Martin

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:40:36 -0500, "Mr. Bla" wrote:


Simply adding molecular weights or even their atomic number is not a method
of determining density.


It is for gases though (to a good approximation)

Maybe beryllium is gaseous on your planet ? It would work then.

I was about to mention the same thing. :-)
...lew...

"Steve B" wrote in
message news:c0bvf.6904$JT.3204@fed1read06...

"Roy" wrote in message
...
There seems to be differences of opinions on
the properties of carbon
monoxide gas. One source says its heavier than
air another says its
lighter, so.......is it heavier or lighter than
air?

To be honest I rather trust the info from this
forum than various
websites and media types.


It is slightly lighter than air. It also enters
the blood stream around 300 times easier than
oxygen, IIRC from my medical training.

If you suspect you or someone is affected, look
at their nails. Cyanosis, bluing of nailbeds
and lips, is a sign.


Steve, Are you sure about the cyanosis? I was
always taught that the first indication of CO
poisoning was a red face, as the haemoglobin
soaked up the CO preferentially and the reduction
in oxygen content in the blood causes increased
circulation to compensate. I was raised in
Canada, and it was a common cause of accidental
death in the winter. A car would get stuck in the
snow,and the occupants would leave the car
running to keep warm . If the wind was blowing
from behind the car,exhaust fumes would enter the
car through air ducts and kill the passengers
fairly quickly.

Tom

One other nasty thing about CO that I didn't notice anybody mention is
that the hemoglobin in your red blood cells with preferentially absorb
CO rather than O2 if CO is present. That's part of the reason it's so
toxic. It locks up your hemoglobin and you suffocate for lack of O2. But
it's also an anesthetic (as is CO2) so you just fall asleep. I've been a
runner forever (well since 1961 - close enough). Back in the 70's when I
used to smoke a pipe, I noticed I just didn't seem to have as much
energy the next day. Turns out it takes ~36 hours for CO to equilibrate
out of your hemoglobin when there is no CO present in the air. One pipe
full of tobacco and I was probably 5% impaired. Pretty scary. That's why
they treat CO poisoning with pure O2, they're trying to get the
hemoglobin to let go of the CO.

Bottom line, be very careful around any source of CO. You could end up
dead and never know it.

Jim

"Jim McGill" wrote
in message
...
One other nasty thing about CO that I didn't
notice anybody mention is that the hemoglobin in
your red blood cells with preferentially absorb
CO rather than O2 if CO is present. That's part
of the reason it's so toxic. It locks up your
hemoglobin and you suffocate for lack of O2. But
it's also an anesthetic (as is CO2) so you just
fall asleep. I've been a runner forever (well
since 1961 - close enough). Back in the 70's
when I used to smoke a pipe, I noticed I just
didn't seem to have as much energy the next day.
Turns out it takes ~36 hours for CO to
equilibrate out of your hemoglobin when there is
no CO present in the air. One pipe full of
tobacco and I was probably 5% impaired. Pretty
scary. That's why they treat CO poisoning with
pure O2, they're trying to get the hemoglobin to
let go of the CO.

Bottom line, be very careful around any source
of CO. You could end up dead and never know it.

Jim

Ya, Jim, I'll be careful. tomorrow. I begin
setting up a new meat packing machine that uses a
VERY small dose of CO in the inerting gas which
fills the package after the air has been vacuumed
out..
I've insisted that the mixer and supply bottles be
stored in the open air. All connections in the
factory will be welded stainless steel.

In article , Tom Miller says...

Ya, Jim, I'll be careful. tomorrow. I begin
setting up a new meat packing machine that uses a
VERY small dose of CO in the inerting gas which
fills the package after the air has been vacuumed
out..
I've insisted that the mixer and supply bottles be
stored in the open air. All connections in the
factory will be welded stainless steel.

In some places that would not be considered sufficient.

Consider a vented toxic gas cabinet, and double-walled
tubing, with the outer space vented and exhausted.

At the least, leak check all the connections before
using it, and consider the drill when changing cylinders.
CO detectors too?

The only reason I mention this is that a co-worker got
a whiff of arsine gas at a plant at one time. The
cylinders were stored in a vented gas room, but both belts
had broken on the exhaust fan, *and* the regulator had
been installed such that there was a tiny leak. He went in
the room and though, hmm, something smells like garlic...

The damage was fortunately small and he recovered.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 21:14:46 -0500, "gfulton"
wrote:

All the 737 rudder actuators were replaced several years ago. An
airworthiness directive from the FAA.

Not yet they haven't, give it another two years before the final ones
are replaced - It's now more than 15 years after the problem was first
seen.


--